Should more restaurants ban children?

So, too, does the response:

If we presume that TheYummyMummy (I KNOW, right?) means "minority or marginalized group" by "segment of the population," the argument is something like claiming that not allowing small children in your restaurant is akin to saying "You know what, I've had enough of those Mexicans running around with their stilettos/those WASPS with their mirthless, braying laughter/gays asking for different flatware, etc. - I'm gonna put up a sign and ban them." The difference is that being gay/WASP/Mexican or whatever is not something you grow out of. Being a child is. This resto in PA is not saying "you can't come here," it's saying "you can't come here until you are old enough that you have a reasonable chance of not having a negative impact on your fellow patrons." If the Cod ran a casual dining restaurant in PA*, I don't think I would ban kids under six. Baby humans do not become gracious and charming dining companions if you toss them a can of Vienna Franks and a church key and tell them to go watch Cinemax in the basement. But you can argue the case either way. However, arguing that banning kids is a form of racism is, itself, kind of racist.

Well except that's not racism at all, right? It's some sort of -ism but not that one. I'm picky about my -isms

But I don't know maybe these days such a ban is warranted. There is a wonderful bakery in Chicago where "yummy mummy" types take their kids. The bakery is fab but it's horrifying to walk in there with ill-raised children climbing the walls and wiping cupcake frosting everywhere while the yummy mummies ignore it or beg young Tyler to stop or risk a time out.

I dream of such a ban when I go into pick up baked goods. I'd probably go more frequently if there was one.

"arguing that banning kids is a form of racism is, itself, kind of racist"

I think this is true--and I'm picky about my isms also. The actual Crime Of Theory being committed by YummyMummy here is generally referred to as "collapsing differences." Rhetorically, it is a fallacy known colloquially as "faulty analogy." Essentially, it's the erroneous assertion that "x" act is just like "y" act despite fundamental differences of kind.

A more glaring example: "I get discriminated against for being a woman, so I really get what it feels like to be black."

As GC points out, YummyMummy's faulty analogy is even more glaring, since she appears to be comparing a transient condition to a non-transient one.